Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Archfilm Date: Jul 17, 2011 10:48am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Request for Removal

Although the copyright for the film "McLintock!" has expired, it is still protected as the music score was renewed properly.

From the United States Copyright Office:

Type of Work: Music
Registration Number / Date: RE0000531478 / 1991-03-25
Renewal registration for: EU0000786778 / 1963-08-20
Title: The Cakewalk. From McLintock. m Batjac Productions, Inc., employer for hire of By Dunham.
Copyright Claimant: EMI Catalogue Partnership (PWH)
Variant title: The Cakewalk
Other Title: McLintock

Type of Work: Music
Registration Number / Date: RE0000531477 / 1991-03-25
Renewal registration for: EU0000786777 / 1963-08-20
Title: Just right for me. From McLintock. w & m Batjac Productions, Inc., employer for hire of By Dunham.
Copyright Claimant: EMI Catalogue Partnership (PWH)
Variant title: Just right for me
Other Title: McLintock

Type of Work: Music
Registration Number / Date: RE0000531651 / 1991-03-27
Renewal registration for: EP0000182604 / 1963-12-30
Title: McClintock’s theme. From McLintock. By Batjac Productions, Inc., employer for hire of Frank DeVol & By Dunham.
Copyright Claimant: EMI Catalogue Partnership (PWH)
Basis of Claim: New Matter: arr.
Variant title: McClintock’s theme
Other Title: Love in the country, McLintock

Type of Work: Music
Registration Number / Date: RE0000531479 / 1991-03-25
Renewal registration for: EU0000786779 / 1963-08-20
Title: When we dance. From McLintock. m Batjac Productions, Inc., employer for hire of By Dunham.
Copyright Claimant: EMI Catalogue Partnership (PWH)
Variant title: When we dance
Other Title: McLintock

Type of Work: Music
Registration Number / Date: RE0000531720 / 1991-03-27
Renewal registration for: EU0000788059 / 1963-08-20
Title: McLintock’s theme. From McLintock. w & m Batjac Productions, Inc., employer for hire of Frank Devol & By Dunham.
Copyright Claimant: EMI Catalogue Partnership, successor in interest to Unart Music Corporation (PWH)
Variant title: McLintock’s theme.
Other Title: McLintock.

The only way I could see this film still being on the website is if the songs were cut out of the movie. Then again, it might alienate those who have seen it before, and probably people who haven't (if the score was replaced with generic stock music). Maybe it should be removed completely.

The film: http://www.archive.org/details/Mclintock.avi

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Jul 18, 2011 5:33am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Request for Non-Removal?

Remove McLintock? Others say otherwise. See this recent post, for instance.

http://www.archive.org/post/383951/copyright-flag-second-notice

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jul 18, 2011 5:40am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Request for Non-Removal?

Also, the argument that the original copyright owners had the exclusive right to exploit the film based on the underlying musical copyrights, as the motion picture publication published as much of the unpublished music (and screenplay) as is revealed in the film, was dismissed in no less than three court cases they and their licensee MPI brought against Good Times Home Video, UAV and The Registrar of Copyrights.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: moviesearcher Date: Jul 20, 2011 3:36pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Request for Non-Removal?

So does this mean that "Its a Wonderful Life" can now be uploaded as the Public Domain Movie that it is? I do recall someone saying that it is Public Domain but could not be uploaded because of the music.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Jul 20, 2011 4:49pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Request for Non-Removal?

I wouldn't look for any concrete rules that you can apply like a blanket, every case can have it's own extenuating factors, so IMHO the best practice is to look for what's being used as PD and try to determine why. On the other hand, It's a Wonderful Life was PD and has been removed from the PD. The wikipedia article does a good job of summarizing it by saying that it lost it's PD status based on this ruling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_v._Abend

Interestingly enough, Wonderful Life was not a buyout contract with respect to underlying rights as the PD exploiters still had to pay royalties for the underlying properties. All in all, it's a completely different deal.


That specific ruling in the link above was due to 2 factors:
1. It was a pre-1964 work that needed a copyright renewal 2. When the rights to the underlying property changed hands, the new owner refused to honor the terms of the original contract and reassign them the rights after copyright renewal, thus taking away the movie rights to the underlying property

I don't think either of those factors applies to Charade


This post was modified by HektorT on 2011-07-20 23:49:00

This post was modified by HektorT on 2011-07-20 23:49:59

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Jul 19, 2011 1:01pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Request for Non-Removal?

One of the website links I posted in the thread that elmagno refers to has pretty good summary articles of the process of acquiring underlying rights for films. With respect to music,
this page:

http://www.lehmannstrobel.com/files/pdfs/music-sync-rights.pdf

says:

"The heart of the sync license describes the rights which are being licensed. This normally will be a non-exclusive right to record and edit the music in sync with the production, to make copies of the recording in sync with the production, to perform the music in sync with the production in theaters, through broadcast and cablecast, and to reproduce and sell home videos containing the music in sync. Usually the sync right is structured so that all other rights other than the sync right may continue to be licensed or otherwise exploited by the musician."

So that is completely consistent with the music composer copyrighting the music to protect all other uses. But movie producers typically try to obtain all rights for the life of the film for one single payment. If that wasn't the case, then the guy who wrote the music might be able to block your ability to exploit a film that you may have spent tens of millions of dollars to produce. In other words, the music is paid for once and from that point onward, the copyright holder can't get anymore money for its use in the film, no matter what is done with the film.

This post was modified by HektorT on 2011-07-19 20:01:31